Accelerat ing t he world's research.

2020 AMA Summer Academic

Conference 1022 2
Adarsh Kumar Kakar, Ashish Kakar

AMA Summer Conference

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

537 CONGENITAL VAGINAL OBST RUCT IONS: DIAGNOSIS AND SURGICAL T REAT MENT
Ngoc T hach Pham

consumer behavior online

Erin Massimi

T he role of social presence in est ablishing loyalt y in e-Service environment s

Alexander Ivanov
2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

Analysis of Online Shoppers’ Wish List and the emergence of Psychological

Safety as a Salient Factor in Online Shopping Intentions

Ashish Kakar
Texas Tech University
ashish.kakar@ttu.edu

ABSTRACT

In this study we investigate what motivates online shoppers and whether they have any
expectations which if fulfilled will further enhance their behavioral intention to shop online. We
use the grounded theory approach to generate the initial set of response from online shoppers
through 10 focus groups sessions. The responses were content analyzed by experts and after
codification reduced to a list of 39 unique items. A questionnaire containing these items were then
administered to 222 participants and their responses analyzed. Factor analysis revealed 6 distinct
factors with Psychological Safety emerging as a new 9-item construct demonstrating the highest
correlation with shoppers’ online shopping intentions followed by utilitarian value, quality value,
hedonic value, epistemic value and social value derived by shoppers from shopping online. The
implications of these findings for online shopping business as well as for marketing of products
and services in general are discussed.

Statement of Contribution

This study makes unique and important contributions to our body of knowledge in online shopping.
Today, Instore and Online shopping outlets not only compete among themselves for shopper
attention but also with each other. A case in point is the aggressive battle between Walmart and
Amazon for retail market share. It is therefore important to understand evolving shopper
expectations. Fulfilling the expectations, will not only result in well-being of online shoppers but
will also make online shopping businesses more competitive. The study found 6 distinct factors
that impact shoppers’ online shopping intentions. 5 of these constructs conformed broadly, with
some variations, with the theoretical framework of consumer perceived value notably those
developed by Sheth et al. (1991a, 1991b) and Sweeney (2001) and to a smaller extent with those
developed by Rintamaki (2006) for instore retail shopping.

However, an important contribution of this study is the emergence of the new construct of
Psychological Safety (PS) in online shopping. Past studies in online shopping had touched upon
the importance of security and privacy of transactions. But the various aspects of PS have been
discovered for the first time in this study. Items of the 9-item PS construct indicate that in addition
to identity theft and cybersecurity, friendly return policy, remedies against inadvertent purchase
errors, timely deliveries, genuine merchandise and price assurance guaranties. The relevance of
this construct can be gauged from the finding that it had a highest correlation with shoppers’
behavioral intention to shop online. Further, we feel this construct of PS might also be relevant
for brick and mortar shopping outlets or even for purchase of goods and services by consumers in
general in non-retail environment, thus providing multiple avenues for research in future. The
study also vouches for how unique insights in marketing analytics can be engendered using mixed
method approach.

1
1022
 2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

INTRODUCTION
Shoppers shop online for various reasons. The utilitarian motives for shopping online have been
well researched (Beauchamp and Ponder, 2010; Close and Kukar-Kinney, 2010; Ganesh et al.,
2010).Various utilitarian benefits to the shopper have been noted such as the convenience of
shopping at anytime from anywhere, savings on travel cost and effort, ease of searching online for
deals and product promotions, personalized services, quick check-out and information availability.

However, of late the hedonic and social motivations for online shopping have also attracted a lot
of research interest (Chiu, Wang, Fang, and Huang, 2014; Liu, Lim, Li, Tan and Cyr, 2019, Kakar
and Kakar, 2019)..Hedonic motivations for shopping online include enjoyment, perceived
freedom, heightened involvement and feeling of flow, increased arousal, escapism, fantasy
fulfillment, playfulness and pleasure. Social motivations include social recognition and self-
esteem

The studies have used various theories, models and paradigms in their investigation such as
expectancy-confirmation paradigm, consumer perceived value models, flow theory and
technology adoption model (Guo and Poole, 2009; Koufaris, 2002; Mathwick and Rigdon, 2004);
To, Liao and Lin, 2007). In this study we use the grounded theory approach (Corbin and Strauss
(2008)) to understand directly from online shoppers the reasons for shopping online and their wish
list for making online shopping an even more attractive option to themselves. We feel that by
using this approach in the study we will be able to more comprehensively capture the evolving
needs of online shoppers that will help online retail businesses as well as the consumers.

Method

Phase 1: Initial Item-Pool Generation

In the first phase of the research we explored the motivations, expectations, ideas and opinions
that consumers held about online shopping. Six focus groups were conducted among students of a
large university in the southwest. Ten randomly selected students attended each session. The
participants were all undergraduate students 50% male and 50% female aged between 19-23. All
students who participated had made at least one purchase from an online store in the past one
month,

To stimulate the discussion participants were asked which is their favorite online outlet and why
they prefer shopping from that outlet. They were then asked what other features/ facilities they
want on their shopping website that would make them buy more frequently online. They were
encouraged not to think about technology constraints but provide their wish-list. To provoke
response, they were asked a series of follow-up questions. The sessions were conducted by experts
experienced in conducting focus group discussions and qualitative research.

After eliminating duplicate or similar responses across sessions a total of 95 statements were
retained for further analysis. These 95 statements were later coded into a smaller subset of 42
concisely worded items through inductive reasoning. All three judges considered experts in the
domain agreed on the items.

2
1023
2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

Phase 2: Survey Data collection and further Item Reduction

A questionnaire was then designed using these 42 items and 4 items from an existing Online
Shopping Intention construct. We adapted the Online Shopping Intention (SI) measures developed
by Koo and Ju (2010, Yoo and Donthu (2001) and Lin and Sun (2009) for testing criterion related
validity. Subjects responded to all items on a 9-point Likert scale with anchors of 9 (strongly agree)
and 1 (strongly disagree) in line with the recommendation that increasing the number of choice-
points increases scale sensitivity without damaging scale reliability (Cummins and Gullone, 2000).
Responses were coded such that high levels of the constructs are represented by high values. Some
items were reverse coded.

Questions related to demographic information such as name, age, gender and length (in years) of
online shopping experience were also included. A pilot study was then conducted using this
questionnaire with 28 students. After analysis of student responses and feedback received from the
debriefing session 3 items were removed as they were seen as too website specific or repetitive
and some items were reworded.

The actual study was then conducted using the revised questionnaire with the remaining 39 items
and 4 items from an existing Online Shopping Intention construct. Students who participated in
the pilot study were not included in this sample. The subjects for the study were recruited from a
medium-sized public university in the south. The college of business of this university encourages
research exposure by awarding extra credit to students for research participation. We sent out an
email to all students asking those who have shopped online at least once in the past 30 days to
participate in the research. We received a total of 240 responses. Based on this response we invited
all 240 students to participate in the study. Among those invited to participate 222 actually
participated in the study. The participants who provided their response to the questionnaire were
19-24 years old. 51.3% respondents were female, and 49.7 % respondents were male. The average
age of respondents was 19-23.2 years and average length of online shopping experience of 4.7
years.

Results and Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of data collected using VARIMAX rotation and eigenvalue
of 1 revealed 8 new factors and a scale for SI. Based on an analysis of the magnitude and scree
plot of the eigenvalues, the total number of factors were reduced to 6 and the total number of items
reduced from 39 to 37 (Table 1). The two factors which were removed had only one item each.
The high loadings (>.50) of the items which were retained demonstrated convergent validity of
items within factors, and no cross loadings (>.40) between factors demonstrated discriminant
validity between factors (see Table 2).

Items Description
Utilitarian Value (UV)
UV1 I save money when I shop at this website
UV2 The shipping charges are reasonable
UV3 My purchases are done cheaper at this shopping site than if I had made them elsewhere
UV4 I was able to get everything I needed at one stop
UV5 I was able to shop at this site without disruptions and delays

3
1024
 2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

UV6 My order was delivered accurately

Hedonic Value (HV)
HV1 I enjoy shopping at this site, not just because I am able to get my purchases done
HV2 I enjoy browsing this website even when I have no intention of buying anything
HV3 Shopping on this website is fun
HV4 In my opinion, shopping at this site is a pleasant way to spend leisure time
HV5 While shopping at this site, I feel happy
HV6 The website images are aesthetically pleasing
Social Value (SV)
SV1 Patronizing this shopping site fits the impression that I want to give to others
SV2 I am eager to tell my friends/acquaintances about this shopping site
SV3 I feel that I belong to the group of shoppers who shop at this site
SV4 I found this shopping site to be consistent with my style
SV5 I felt like a smart shopper by shopping at this site
SV6 This shopping site gave me something that is personally important or pleasing for me
Psychological Safety (PS)
PS1 I know if I made a mistake in the order the online retailer would offer me a second
PS2 I have concerns about cybersecurity at this website R
PS3 The website has a friendly return policy
PS4 When I buy at this site, I am guaranteed the best possible deal
PS5 I have concerns about identity theft when shopping online R
PS6 I have concerns about counterfeit goods when shopping online R
PS7 I trust this website
PS8 I feel assured about timely deliveries
PS9 If I have a question before placing the order, I get honest answers quickly
Epistemic Value (EV)
EV1 I can examine the product almost as if I am shopping in a brick and mortar store
EV2 There is always something new and exciting when I browse this website
EV3 It is as if I am embarking on a great adventure when I visit this website
Quality Value (QV)
QV1 The website is easy to locate
QV2 I can easily check my order status
QV3 The website is legible
QV4 I was able to find the website quickly
QV5 The web pages loaded quickly
QV6 It was easy to navigate the website
QV7 The website is well-organized
Shopping Intention (SI)
SI1 If asked, I will recommend others to use this online shopping website
SI2 If I want to buy anything, I first consider this online shopping website
SI3 I can hardly consider changing to other shopping websites
SI4 I will continue to purchase frequently from this shopping website in future
Table 1. Final List of Items

Factors
Items
3 4 5 6 7
1 2
SV1 0.930 -0.026 4-0.048 0.023 0.030 -0.003 -0.026
SV2 0.914 0.001 0.013 -0.006 0.024 0.028 0.001

4
1025
2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

SV3 0.913 0.104 -0.059 -0.004 0.091 0.002 0.104

SV4 0.806 0.089 0.022 -0.141 0.068 -0.042 0.089
SV5 0.844 0.044 0.010 0.082 0.046 0.007 0.044
SV6 0.834 0.010 0.079 -0.001 0.072 0.113 0.008
UV1 0.030 0.908 0.135 0.107 0.052 0.012 0.007
UV2 0.078 0.841 0.133 0.231 0.045 0.087 0.089
UV3 0.004 0.875 0.124 0.081 0.015 0.034 0.089
HV1 -0.064 0.146 0.645 0.085 0.031 0.108 0.135
UV4 -0.001 0.895 0.113 0.165 0.078 0.041 0.133
HV2 0.069 0.016 0.886 0.057 0.004 0.075 0.124
UV5 -0.026 0.918 0.170 0.069 -0.057 0.199 0.036
HV3 0.012 0.002 0.859 0.062 0.073 0.217 0.045
UV6 0.132 0.882 0.021 0.11 0.074 0.007 0.030
HV4 0.019 0.378 0.733 0.029 0.064 0.006 0.022
HV5 0.002 0.135 0.858 0.002 -0.057 0.199 0.097
HV6 0.032 0.079 0.844 0.066 0.217 -0.057 0.199
SI1 -0.010 0.016 0.373 0.796 0.229 0.073 0.217
SI2 0.018 0.025 0.095 0.855 0.067 0.074 0.007
SL3 0.008 0.001 0.133 0.840 0.025 0.064 0.006
SI4 -0.006 0.026 -0.043 0.884 0.229 0.073 0.017
PS1 -0.057 0.199 0.079 0.034 0.796 0.074 0.007
PS2 0.073 0.217 0.055 -0.021 0.855 0.064 0.006
PS3 0.074 0.007 0.084 0.072 0.840 -0.003 -0.026
PS4 0.064 0.006 0.021 -0.058 0.822 0.028 0.001
PS5 -0.057 0.199 0.096 0.034 0.796 0.002 0.104
PS6 0.217 -0.057 0.199 0.018 0.803 -0.042 0.089
PS7 0.229 0.073 0.217 0.020 0.825 0.007 0.044
Ps8 0.067 0.074 0.007 0.033 0.830 0.113 0.008
PS9 0.025 0.064 0.006 0.120 0.833 0.068 0.007
EV1 0.229 0.073 0.017 0.070 0.045 0.872 0.089
EV2 0.067 0.074 0.007 0.033 0.015 0.834 0.089
EV3 0.025 0.064 0.006 0.006 0.031 0.908 0.135
QV1 -0.057 0.199 -0.057 0.199 -0.057 0.199 0.841
QV2 0.073 0.217 0.073 0.217 0.073 0.217 0.875
QV3 0.074 0.007 0.074 0.007 0.074 0.007 0.796
QV4 0.064 0.006 0.064 0.006 0.064 0.006 0.855
QV5 -0.057 0.199 -0.057 0.199 -0.057 0.199 0.840
QV6 0.064 0.006 0.217 -0.057 0.217 -0.057 0.855
QV7 -0.057 0.199 0.229 0.073 0.229 0.073 0.840

5
1026
 2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

Table 2. Results of factor Analysis

The internal reliabilities of all the scales were greater than .83 (see Table 3). Further none of the
inter-correlations between the scales were greater than .65 (see Table 3). The correlations between
the all pairs of constructs was found to be significant less than one indicating that each construct
is adding something new (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). The highest correlation was .48 (see Table
2) and the associated confidence interval calculated by adding or subtracting two standard
deviations from correlation was 0.43 to 0.53.

Name of the scale Cronbach’s Items UV HV SV QV EV PS SI

Alpha
Utilitarian Value (UV) 0.94 6 1.0
Hedonic Value (HV) 0.91 6 0
.21 1.0
Social Value (SV) 0.83 6 .15 .250 1.0
Quality Value (QV ) 0.86 7 .28 .25* 0
.23 1.0
Epistemic Value (EV 0.84 3 *
.12 *
.24 *
.17 0
.22 1.0
Psychological Safety (PS) 0.86 9 *
.11 .14 .11 .16 .10 0 1.00
Shopping Intention (SI) 0.88 4 .36 .28 .24 .32 0.2 0.48* 1.0
Table 3. Reliability of Constructs** * Correlations
and their * * 5* * 0

Further, for each pair of construct the average variance extracted was greater than the squared
structural path coefficient between them (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The values of average
variance extracted was found to range between 0.72 and 0.77 while the maximum value of the
squared path was 0.44. Thus, discriminant validity was supported. As the average variance
extracted was greater than 0.50 for all factors convergent validity was further supported. Further
the constructs behaved as expected. All factors were found to be positively correlated to the
shoppers’ intention to shop online thereby supporting criterion-related validity.

Discussion and Contribution

This study makes unique and important contributions to our body of knowledge in online shopping.
Today, Instore and Online shopping outlets not only compete among themselves for shopper
attention but also with each other. A case in point is the aggressive battle between Walmart and
Amazon for retail market share. Each shopping format is introducing new features to attract
shoppers by providing superior value. For example, Walmart will be introducing the scan and go
feature to eliminate shopper time in passing through check-out lanes. On the other hand, Amazon
is investing in brick-and-mortar stores to serve as distribution points for faster delivery of goods
to consumers (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/amazon-vs-walmart-one-will-
prevail/).

It is therefore important to understand evolving shopper expectations. Fulfilling the expectations,

will not only result in well-being of online shoppers but will also make online shopping businesses
more competitive. Overall the constructs identified from analysis of the wish list of shoppers
agreed with the broader theoretical framework of consumer perceived value notably those
developed by Sheth et al. (1991a, 1991b) and also those developed by Rintamaki (2006) for retail
shopping, thereby indicating content validity of scales.

6
1027
2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

Rintamaki (2006) had focused on 3 values derived by shoppers i.e. HV, UV and SV. All the three
constructs were identified in the EFA. Additionally, this study also found that Sheth’s (1991a,
1991b) EV is relevant. EV had been identified as one of values derived from consumers of product
and services by Sheth et al. (1991a, 1991b). Sheth et al (1991a, 1991b) had also identified
conditional value as one of the five user perceived value in additional to HV, SV, UV and EV but
no items were found to load on this factor. QV was identified by Sweeney (2001) as one of the
four value constructs. However, unlike Sweeney (2001) QV and UV were identified as 2 different
constructs in our study. UV was found to have items that reflected functional and practical benefits
derived by shoppers while QV items were related to the website or e-store quality (see Table 1).

However, an important contribution of this study is the emergence of the new construct of
Psychological Safety in online shopping. Past studies in online shopping had touched upon the
importance of security and privacy of transactions. But the various aspects of Psychological Safety
have been discovered for the first time in this study. Items of the 9-item Psychological Safety
construct indicate that in addition to identity theft and cybersecurity, friendly return policy,
remedies against inadvertent purchase errors, timely deliveries, genuine merchandise and price
assurance guaranties. The relevance of this construct can be gauged from the finding that it had a
highest correlation with shoppers’ behavioral intention to shop online.

Although, the construct of Psychological Safety probably appears for the first time in consumer
marketing literature and the nomenclature used by us is from work literature, there is a precedence.
In the past, one of the enduring concepts in consumer marketing of user satisfaction also evolved
from job satisfaction literature (Pfaff, 1973; Czeipiel, Rosenberg and Akerele, 1974). The
adaptations were considered to have face validity because the concept of satisfaction is common
in both (Maddox, 1981).

Psychological safety in work environment describes individuals’ perceptions about the

consequences of interpersonal risks” (Edmonton et al.,2004). Likewise, in online shopping
Psychological Safety describes the risks of unpleasant consequences in B2C ecommerce
transactions – personal, financial, informational and service. Just as lack of psychological safety
in work setting has negative consequences on - motivation, cooperation and knowledge sharing -
required for effective and harmonious functioning of an organization, lack of PS in shopping may
similarly negatively impact shopper motivations and intentions to transact with an online vendor.
Thus, even though the PS construct is new in consumer marketing literature, we argue that it has
both face and content validity. We feel this construct of PS might also be relevant for brick and
mortar shopping outlets or even for purchase of goods and services by consumers in non-retail
environment, thus providing multiple avenues for research in future. The study also vouches for
the power of mixed method approach in providing unique insights in market research and analytics.

References

Bagozzi, R., & Heatherton T. F. (1994). A General Approach to Representing Multifaceted

Personality Constructs: Application to State Self-Esteem,” Structural Equation Modeling, 1(1),
35–67.

7
1028
 2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

Beauchamp, M.B. and Ponder, N. (2010), Perceptions of retail convenience for in-store and online
shoppers, The Marketing Management Journal, 20(1), pp. 49-65.
Chiu, C. M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y. H., & Huang, H. Y. (2014). Understanding customers' repeat
purchase intentions in B2C e‐commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived
risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85-114.
Close, A. G., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2010). Beyond buying: Motivations behind consumers' online
shopping cart use. Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 986-992.
Corbin, J. M., and A. L. Strauss (2008), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theorySage Publications, Inc.
Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000, March). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The
case for subjective quality of life measurement. In Proceedings, second international conference
on quality of life in cities (Vol. 74, p. 93).
Czeipiel, J. A. Rosenberg, L. J., & Akerele, A. (1974). Perspectives on Consumer Satisfaction, in
Proceedings, American Marketing Association.
Edmondson, A. C., Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning
in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and
approaches, 12, 239-272.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K. E., Luckett, M., & Pomirleanu, N. (2010). Online shopper motivations,
and e-store attributes: an examination of online patronage behavior and shopper
typologies. Journal of retailing, 86(1), 106-115.
Guo, Y. M., & Poole, M. S. (2009). Antecedents of flow in online shopping: a test of alternative
models. Information Systems Journal, 19(4), 369-390.
Kakar, A., & Kakar, A. K. (2018). Assessing Shopper's Penalty Reward Calculus in Online versus
Instore Shopping. e-Service Journal, 10(3), 24-45.
Koo, D. M., & Ju, S. H. (2010). The interactional effects of atmospherics and perceptual curiosity
on emotions and online shopping intention. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 377-388.
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online
consumer behavior. Information systems research, 13(2), 205-223.
Lin, G. T. and Sun, C. C. (2009). Factors influencing satisfaction and loyalty in online shopping:
an integrated model, Online information review (3:3), pp. 458-475.
Liu, F., Lim, E. T., Li, H., Tan, C. W., & Cyr, D. (2019). Disentangling utilitarian and hedonic
consumption behavior in online shopping: An expectation disconfirmation
perspective. Information & Management, 103199.
Maddox, R. (1981). Two-factor theory and consumer satisfaction: Replication and extension.
Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (1), 97-102.
Mathwick, C., & Rigdon, E. (2004). Play, flow, and the online search experience. Journal of
consumer research, 31(2), 324-332.
Pfaff, A. B. (1973). An Index of Consumer Satisfaction Proceedings. Association for Consumer
Research, 713-37.
Rintamäki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H. and Spence, M. T. (2006). Decomposing the value of
department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions: Evidence from
Finland, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management (34:1), pp. 6-24.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of
consumption values. Journal of business research, 22(2), 159-170.

8
1029
2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Consumption values and market choices:
Theory and applications (pp. 16-74). Cinicinnati, OH: South-Western Pub.
To, P. L., Liao, C. & Lin, T. (2007). Shopping motivations on internet: a study based on utilitarian
and hedonic value Technovation, 27 (12), pp. 774-787.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an Internet
shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly journal of electronic commerce, 2(1)

9
1030
 2020 AMA Summer Academic Conference

CHALLENGE OF PROMINENT POSITION: DECOMPOSING THE SHOPPING

GOALS IN SPONSORNED SEARCH ADVERTISING

Qing Huanga, Tao Hea, Bingjia Shaoa, Xiaoling Lia

a
School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing,

China.

For further information, please contact Qing Huang, Dr., Chongqing University (Email:

huangqing19@126.com)

Keywords: search advertising, position rank, shopping goals theory，product type, promotion

information

Description: This study explores the moderating role of consumers’ shopping goals through

product types, promotion information, and keyword specificity on the effect of advertising

position rank on the performance of search advertising.

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

RESEARCH QUESTION

Sponsored search advertising has evolved as an important pillar in the advertising market.

Advertisers bid for the ranking position based on their preferable price and pay for it by actual

performance (i.e., clicks). Consumers relying on the list information to make decisions are

effective targets with highly interest and purchase intention. These advantages attract

advertisers to spend considerable budgets on search advertising, and engage in intense

competition to win the prominent positions which are represented by the top slots in the

search list. However, consumers often exhibit different search behavior and have distinctive

response to advertising positions. Therefore, it is necessary to explore what motivations drive

1

1031